Quote:<hr> It seems you posit some clarity and vision that must be gotten from the mind that is not this(clear and with vision). So if this mind is not clear as you posit and as yours must have been once,,, then what I am asking is how can you know you are clear about Enlightenment? <hr>

Enlightenment itself provides this clarity. It is like turning on a light in a room after spending all your life in darkness. And it is via this light that you can determine that you are indeed enlightened.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> As for you helping others to follow their own path this idea makes me smile. A path is a groove and can not lead to anything living. A path leads to a know thing, a dead thing and it seems that you have charged yourself with choosing what is best for others. Maybe this waking others up is useless and harmful to them. I wonder if you have asked if you are not doing it all for little old you and that Ego. <hr>

I have examined myself more thoroughly than you can possibly imagine.

The path to enlightenment is simply the path of clearing away delusion. People are free to reject this path if they want to, but they would only be kidding themselves if they thought that they were retaining a connection to truth and rationality.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> DQ: "When I started taking philosophy seriously, I had no idea whether enlightenment existed or not, which is no surprise since I was still in a state of ignorance. Other people said it existed, which excited my interest, and I was dissatisfied with my ignorance enough to want to investigate it thoroughly."

NS: I think that is what I was saying. You could not have had any idea about it until some fool told you about it, as with everything else you claim to know. <hr>

Your entire critisism is premised on an article of blind faith - namely, that enlightenment is non-existent and that anyone who values it is a fool. I think you need to reexamine this culturally inhereted blind belief.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> I will ask you again in a little different way. How could you, being in the state you claim you and others must have come from, how is it that you can be trusted first of all to choose and then to believe or ascertain that this idea that you must have been given was real.<hr>

It is basically a matter of chance. The person who starts off seeking the highest enlightenment initially has no idea where this enlightenment is or what it might consist of. At this point, he might stumble upon the right path or he might not - it all depends on the books he reads, the people he meets, the experiences he has, the quality of his reasoning, his level of insight, etc. If he does happen to stumble upon the right path, then his reasoning and his consciousness will gradually take over and he can begin to zero in on enlightenment in the same way that a smart bomb zeros in on a designated target. It no longer becomes a game of chance.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> I wonder if you have ever really asked what it is that has you seeking this idea provided by the people who made the world what it is and the very ones who must have also played this cruel game on you of making you deluded and blind and now claim to use the same process to help you to escape it with a new idea supplied from the same source. It seems that many facts do not escape your grasp but this one surely has. Enlightenment is, was and never can be your idea so you are not on your path nor could you ever be. <hr>

I hate to be blunt, but it is evident that you have a limited understanding of what enlightenment is. Again, enlightenment is simply freedom from delusion and false thought. If you wish to call this a foolish path, then I am more than happy to be labelled a fool. It is far better than operating on blind faith, however, as you are currently doing.

Quote:<hr>In my view, DQ, good ideas, good method, but underlying liberal dogma - one of these delusions you describe. I believe the Hegelian method of activism has shattered history as Fukuyama states.<hr>

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> Freedom from all delusion can also be described, perhaps another form of the same, as nihilism: recognizing that nothing is real, perhaps a very scientific form of idealism. <hr>

Nihilism is a superficial standpoint, an allergic reaction to religious attempts to create meaning. As I explained in my book, it is just as important to go begond nihilisim as it is to go beyond religion. Both spring from the same superficial mindset.

Quote:<hr> I agree with Notsure. While most of your ideas are logical, you fail to understand that the "path" you describe is yours alone. It seems to me that you're just trying to put your own experiences in a frame of thought, in a way that might allow you to be truthful to yourself. Your biggest mistake is to assume that your experience of "enlightenment" is universal and that people should try to reach it. <hr>

Enlightenment is indeed universal in the sense that any being in the universe who uses reason to free itself from the core delusions of existence will experience the same wisdom and knowledge. Whether it be a Jesus or a Lao Tzu from thousands of years ago, or a twenty-first century thinker in the West, or an alien in a parallel universe, or a sentient super-computer in the far-flung future, the process is exactly the same - namely, freeing the mind from the false conception that things (including the self) really exist. This wisdom is both universal and timeless.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> There's no enlightenment, you're just being you. That or you are indeed enlightened... but then everyone else is too. Same difference. <hr>

So you are no more rational or enlightened than a raving Christian fundamenatlist?

Quote:

Quote:<hr> It all sounds like a fancy self-assurance mechanism to me. It's good that you feel like you are having things your way, but your idea that your way is the same as other people's is silly at best. It's definitely not like mine. <hr>

If it is not yours, then you are condemning yourself to remain trapped in ignorance.

David wrote "Your entire critisism is premised on an article of blind faith - namely, that enlightenment is non-existent and that anyone who values it is a fool. I think you need to reexamine this culturally inhereted blind belief."

I don't think I have said there is no such a thing as Enlightenment. I have simply asked you why it is you seek it and that telling other people about these Ideal states is a hoax. As for if they exist I suggest that you telling us about a state that is free of Ego is impossible. Just because a thing can not be seen or witnessed does not mean it does not exist. So I would not say that Enlightenment nor God do not exist but just that your talking about them is irrelevant. You are just talking about a state that some one else has told you about. You seem to have a fanatic zeal about the fact or truth of this thing you seek,

"The path to enlightenment is simply the path of clearing away delusion. People are free to reject this path if they want to, but they would only be kidding themselves if they thought that they were retaining a connection to truth and rationality."

It seem the same as saying that the bible is true because if you read the bible it says it is true right in there. So I do not suggest there is no such a thing as enlightenment, what I suggest is that your seeking what some one else has falsely heaped on you can not be enlightenment. Maybe you are Enlightened when you are not seeking but you have no way of knowing that by seeking do you?

So a man who seeks god will find what he calls god and if there is such a thing as god what he finds will not be god. A man who seeks what he has been told is Enlightenment will find what he is looking for, from the sickness he has accepted by this very search. What he is looking for is created from the very mind that now seeks it. You are still using the dirt to try and clean up the mess and expecting in fact demanding that it all comes clean.

Maybe an enlightened person would not say a word, but since those who told you about it were talking you have assumed from the start and have no proven to yourself anyway that that must be the way to do it. You are on your own path seeking something that they have told you about. Since you have a real feeling that you have found something you now defend it. You seem to have ignored or forgotten that you can not experience a thing that you have not been told about by others. Just as going into explicit detail and explanation of a Circus would in effect ruin the show for a first time visitor, what you have been told and what you are now saying and even these very words this fool types are all ruining some ones trip to the Circus.

All they can experience now is what you have told them about or they can choose to pick off some one elses list. So as you preach these ideas about Enlightenment I suggest that you don't see that you actually are damaging others experience of a thing by explaining it in detail.

Quote:<hr>Before you go any further, I should point out that the truth that all things fundamentally lack value is not the equivalent of the far more profound truth that all things lack inherent existence. The former is certainly a consequence of the latter, but not the equivalent.<hr>

I know they are different, my point was just that I don't believe in any of those truths. They make logical sense, so I tend to use them when trying to talk to other people, but what is being communicated exists despite of that belief.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>Rairun: I HAVE to fit my experience in a frame of thought to express it, and this is the best one I can think of. The frame of thought is not the experience though.

David: You speak this as though it were the truth. But is it really true? Or is it just another arbitrary piece of whimsy on your part? Your entire philosophical outlook seems to be based on it.<hr>

I don't know if it's universally true, but at this moment I am unable to express it in any other way. And yes, my philosophical outlook is based on it, but the outlook itself has no purpose other than to communicate my reality to you.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>I understand what you are trying to say - that the attempt to express one's reality in words will always be, at best, a distortion of that reality. But this is not really true. There are occasions in which it is perfectly possible to articulate the whole truth in words. You did it yourself when you stated that "the frame of thought is not the experience". You managed to express the whole truth of this particular matter and I, the reader, understood you perfectly<hr>

I said that my atempt to express my reality in words is a distortion of that reality.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>I think you need to look a little more deeply into your own thought-processes and observe that you are indeed just as commited to the truth as I am. The only difference is that I am far more conscious about it. All throughout your post you state bald truths in your attempt to justify your philosophical outlook, and yet you are trying to remain in denial about it. It makes your thinking look very strange.<hr>

As I said, the philosophical outlook I tried to describe doesn't matter at all. I'm not trying to justify it, I'm trying to use it to point to something else. You can't see it.

You can think that I'm in denial about it, I'm not going to try to change your opinion. Believe it or not, this philosophical outlook only appeared in mind when there was the need to describe my reality to you (it didn't do a very good job though). It's not what this reality is based on at all.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>Rather, they are solid truths that serve as a basis for your belief that all thought-structures are whimsical and meaningless.<hr>

YES, but the belief all thought-structures are meaningless doesn't mean anything at all. I'm just trying to tell you that to me this belief seems to be dettached from the way my life expresses itself. You are saying that I base all my life around a belief. I'm saying that there is no belief in my mind until I have to express this beliefless state to you. But even then, this belief appear as a consequence of life, not the other way around.

Quote:<hr> DQ: Before you go any further, I should point out that the truth that all things fundamentally lack value is not the equivalent of the far more profound truth that all things lack inherent existence. The former is certainly a consequence of the latter, but not the equivalent.

Rairun:I know they are different, my point was just that I don't believe in any of those truths. <hr>

I realize that. You believe in the validity and truth of the beliefless state.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> Rairun: I HAVE to fit my experience in a frame of thought to express it, and this is the best one I can think of. The frame of thought is not the experience though.

David: You speak this as though it were the truth. But is it really true? Or is it just another arbitrary piece of whimsy on your part? Your entire philosophical outlook seems to be based on it.

Rairun: I don't know if it's universally true, but at this moment I am unable to express it in any other way. And yes, my philosophical outlook is based on it, but the outlook itself has no purpose other than to communicate my reality to you. <hr>

That's not really true, though, is it. A person's philosophical outlook shapes his entire life and influences his every decision.

For example, your outlook seems to incorporate a disbelief in Ultimate Truth and enlightenment. This in turn dissuades you from searching for these things with any vigour and encourages you to spend your time doing something else.

If your outlook did affirm the existence and value of enlightenment, then I guarantee you that your life would be very different to what it is now.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> I'm just trying to tell you that to me this belief seems to be dettached from the way my life expresses itself. You are saying that I base all my life around a belief. I'm saying that there is no belief in my mind until I have to express this beliefless state to you. <hr>

Again, this is clearly false and part of the denial that you engage in. Your outlook has induced a spiritual topor inside you which is having a dramatic effect on your life.

Quote:<hr>I realize that. You believe in the validity and truth of the beliefless state. <hr>

Don't you realize I'm just throwing words out of my mouth? I couldn't care less about the existence of the mythical beliefless state, I just used that expression to try to explain the whole situation to you. I myself don't understand the situation and I'm fine with that. I have many little theories like the one I told you, but that's all they are: little theories that I talk about to people. I have no idea if they are right or wrong.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>That's not really true, though, is it. A person's philosophical outlook shapes his entire life and influences his every decision.<hr>

Do you know one of those stories where a seeker comes to an enlightened man asking how he can kill the ego, and the enlightened man proceeds to ask him where the ego he's talking about even is? They remind me of your talk about philosophical outlooks for some reason.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>For example, your outlook seems to incorporate a disbelief in Ultimate Truth and enlightenment. This in turn dissuades you from searching for these things with any vigour and encourages you to spend your time doing something else.<hr>

I have no belief or disbelief concerning ultimate truth and enlightenment. I think there is probably some validity to enlightenment claims, but what does it have to do with me? I don't feel like spending energy to search for any of those things. In my mind things are great the way they are. I like going to college and sitting on the corner through the classes without really paying attention to anything. I like walking alone through those halls feeling the breeze, observing people as they walk by. I like exchanging a few words with my classmates, just because they are nice. I like seeing their feelings leak through their front in the most subtle way. I like talking about their lives and mine. I like driving back home and having lunch. I like teasing my mom saying that I'm a genius because I post at the genius forum! I like taking naps in the afternoon and having surreal dreams that mix themselves up with the reality of my room. I like thinking constantly about the person I love and how awesome it will be when we are together. I like thinking about our little movements together and about the distant future. I like writing poetry out of the sheer feeling of things. I like feeling other people's poetry. I like sitting lazily in my chair, reading various internet boards and posting on them. I like thinking about the ideas of enlightenment and ultimate reality!! I like playing my guitar and nailing down a song, even though I suck at it. I like going crazy because I procrastinated my work, staying up until 4am getting it done. I like doing all the things I do, or else I'd do them in a different way. I have no desire to stop doing any of those things to search for enlightenment. Why would I do it? Why would I choose something I don't feel like doing over another thing that I actually like?

I just have to say that I think your book is a ground breaking work. I see it somewhat as a culmination of all the Truths of philosophy over all time.

However, I could not help but think about the Tao Te Ching as you formulated the laws of causation. I understand Lao Tzu's philosophy as Nature being spontaneous or "of itself so" which seems to contradict causation. Where am I going wrong?

By the way, what is the deal with all these nonsense one line posts from people? Isn't there some forum for buffoons where they can go play or something?

As this book seems to be intended for the spiritual student, may I recommend a more gradual introduction to the topic? I think a description of the putative problem of being un-enlightened (why would one want to become a spiritual student?), and a definition of terms such as 'Ultimate Reality' would be helpful. I like how each component of the book is acknowledged in the beginning.

I also enojyed the writing style- smooth and interesting. My only whim is that the writer comes across as slightly self-centred, even arrogant. I'm sure that you are nothing of the sort; perhaps the book's tone could be changed to match your warming personality?

Quote:<hr> I just have to say that I think your book is a ground breaking work. I see it somewhat as a culmination of all the Truths of philosophy over all time.

However, I could not help but think about the Tao Te Ching as you formulated the laws of causation. I understand Lao Tzu's philosophy as Nature being spontaneous or "of itself so" which seems to contradict causation. Where am I going wrong? <hr>

When understood properly, there is no difference between causality and spontaneity. Things spontaneously come into being ..... in a causal manner. Nothing can regulate or restrict this free-flowing process.

Quote:<hr> As this book seems to be intended for the spiritual student, may I recommend a more gradual introduction to the topic? I think a description of the putative problem of being un-enlightened (why would one want to become a spiritual student?), and a definition of terms such as 'Ultimate Reality' would be helpful. <hr>

All these areas will be addressed in other parts of the book, which are still in the process of being written.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> I also enojyed the writing style- smooth and interesting. My only whim is that the writer comes across as slightly self-centred, even arrogant. I'm sure that you are nothing of the sort; perhaps the book's tone could be changed to match your warming personality? <hr>

Well, I am rather self-centered and arrogant, so, for better or worse, the book does accurately reflect my personality.